STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAM SAGAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 9.12.2009 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 715 of 2009 - Ramsagar Rai and Anr. Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India,; by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 11.1.2001, complainant/ respondent deposited Rs. 50,000/ - in cash with opposite party/ petitioner for fixed deposit for a period of 3 years. Opposite party prepared FDR showing maturity date as 11.1.2004 and handed over to the complainant. When complainant approached opposite party on maturity date, opposite party apprised that FDR is of no value and no amount will be paid against it. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complainants were having a savings bank account No. 01190/011570 and on 11.1.2001 amount of Rs. 50,000/ - was not deposited in cash by complainants, but instruction was given to withdraw that amount from savings bank account for the purpose of depositing the amount in the Fixed Deposit Account. The deposit slip was also signed by the complainant for that purpose and debit voucher was also signed. On the basis of these documents, command was given to the computer for withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 50,000/ - from the savings bank account and crediting the same in the Fixed Deposit Account of the complainants and presuming that computer had obeyed the command, the FDR, was prepared and the same was delivered to the complainants, but, in fact, on account of some technical defect, computer failed to obey the command given and, so, no amount could be withdrawn from the saving account of the complainants nor it could be transferred to Fixed Deposit Account. As no amount was withdrawn from saving account or transferred in the Fixed Deposit Account, no mistake in the balancing amount of the Bank at the close of the day could be detected. When FDR was produced for encashment by the complainants, then the circumstances were explained to the complainants and thus, when no amount was received, then, no amount was payable against FDR and by not paying the amount, the respondent Bank has not committed deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainants was allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to pay maturity amount of FDR alongwith interest and was further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/ - as cost of litigation against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.